Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:25:07 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: [auto] Peter amends p342

"Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On: 1/14/06 8:46:27 AM Peter sent:
>> Motion 342/1: Queue Up Interesting Proposals
>> An object that submits a proposal holds that proposal and is said to
>> own it.
>> Pens are Tools that are Carryable Household Objects with an appearance
>> of {{A plain quill pen.}} and effects text of
>> {{
>> 0: Submit a proposal. Play this ability only if you hold less than 20
>> Pending Proposals.
>> }}
> I can't tell from reading these two statements whether the pen or the
> Player that activates the effects of the pen own the proposal.
> The clause 'if you hold less than' connotes that the Object Player
> owns them.

It was the player that I meant. The "you" means the entity playing the
ability (r1-2, "Abilities", paragraph 2). And the first sentence
instructs the activator (the implied "you" in the imperative sentence)
to submit a proposal, which by r1-6 can only be done by an Outsider
anyway. I could make it clearer if you want, although I'm not sure if
there's wording that would be better without being even more verbose.

> I gather from the general text of the change that a pen is not destroyed
> once used to create a Proposal, but is rather used as a counter for
> determining how many pending props will become open by the
> following paragraph:
>> At the beginning of each Voting Period, for each player, the Pending
>> Proposals e holds with the lowest X serial numbers become Open, where
>> X is the lower of the number of Pending Proposals e holds and the
>> number of Pens e holds. Then, all Pens are destroyed, and then each
>> player gets 5 newly-created Pens.

That was the intent, yes. Perhaps I should have made that clearer from
the beginning.

>> [[And this time, I remember to fix things to compensate for my
>> redefinition of Pen.]]
>> Give each player 1 newly-created Pen for each Pending proposal e
>> holds.
> This last statement reinforces that pens are not destroyed, and accounts
> for pens destroyed by creating pending proposals during the current
> voting period by current rules if this prop passes, if I've got things
> correctly.

That's exactly it.

>> In the effects text of Pen Pack, change
>> {{
>> Pens in a Pen Pack are not destroyed at the beginning of a Voting Period.
>> }}
>> to
>> {{
>> Pens in a Pen Pack can't be destroyed.
>> }}
>> ---------------------------------
> Questions:
> If in fact a pen is not destroyed once used to submit a
> proposal, what precludes a Player from placing a used
> pen in a Pen Pack? I don't see any restrictions in the
> effects of the Pen Pack except how many pens it can hold.

I thought that that was broken when you mentioned it, but now I think
that it's fine. It doesn't matter which Pen was used to submit a prop;
all Pens are basically identical. But if you put 2 Pens in a Pen Pack
before the start of voting, then only 3 of your pending props will
move on to voting. And then some later time you could take the 2 pens
back out, allowing 7 of your props to move on to voting. It works
functionally identical to how Pen Packs work now, letting you give up
2 props now for the ability to submit an extra 2 later.

It's just that rather than controlling the number you can submit, now
Pens just control the number that move on to voting.

> Also, if pens become merely a counter for determining
> the number of pending props that open, should it be explicit
> that pens in a Pen Pack are not held by a Player.
> It seems there could be a loophole here:
> An object (player) holding an object (pen pack) holding
> objects (pens). Is the player holding the pens because e
> is holding the pen pack?

I'd been going under the assumption of an answer of "no", meaning that
holding isn't transitive. Rule 1-2 "Possessions" states that each
object holds a set of other objects. Should I make it explicit
somewhere that holding isn't transitive? Since it isn't claimed
anywhere that it is transitive, I'm not sure how one could argue for
that, other than by saying that it's a common use of English.

> Just thoughts.

I appreciate them.

> A further thought:
> Could a pen used to create a proposal become bound
> to that proposal, and in that way the player owning the
> proposal "Annul" the proposal and so have the use of
> the pen again?

Well, if a Pen is just a counter for the number of props one can move
to Open in an nweek, then just having a way to annul a Pending prop
would just mean that the next pending prop in line would move to Open
instead. That is, if I submit props 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, normally
props 1 though 5 would move to Open at the start of Voting. But if I
annul prop 3, then 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 would move to Open at that time.

So, I think that my prop was better than I thought, and maybe it
doesn't need another amendment after all.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list